Could a New World Order be a good thing?

Well, assuming that I even WANT an NWO, I suppose I would start by introducing all sorts of new diseases, pests, and invasive species to wipe out the native plant life they depend on. Giving them blankets recycled from a smallpox infirmary would be effective. When they get sick, a neat trick would be to tell them that their god is angry, and that they should run and warn all the other local tribes, thus spreading the infection- that could take care of several birds with one stone. Anyone not effected could be killed out of hand with our superior weaponry. Once their spirits are broken, we could trick them into signing over their land. We could put them all on reservations with no food, starve them, and make available nothing but sugar and alcohol, compromising their health and dooming them to poverty for generations. We could make allegations of infanticidal practices, even make "documentaries" about it, using carefully staged shots of them burying children for maximum emotional impact. Don't worry, it won't come out till later that it's all lies, and by then everyone will be worked up into such a rage that they demand we wipe the savages from the face of the Earth. We could build strawmen such as the so-called "noble savage doctrine" to discredit anyone who objects to all this. There are a lot of ways to deal with them if we want a new world order. I think we're progressing just fine.

What I've been trying to say is that civilization itself is innately oppressive, particularly to native people. Civilized peoples simply cannot co-exist with the indigenous.

Drew- yes, I'd love to let this go. I'm just waiting for Yeal to say that he hates indians. He's already suggested in our last conversation that we wipe out middle easter people. I just want him to discredit himself again so he'll fuck off for another few months.

 

But a LOT of indigenous peoples ARE civilized ~

perhaps ignorant of our knowledge,

but with knowledge of their own.


That ignorance wouldn't necessarily make them UNcivilized, you know?

 

The idea of a one world government that is based on world peace and prosperity is bullshit. At least in this current world it is. There are too many people out there who love crime, and war, and murder. These people will not allow such a government to happen. To have a peaceful NWO we would first have to wage war of such magnitude that it is very likely there wouldn't be much left to use when it was all said and done. It is simply an unrealistic dream....

 

Depends on your definition of civilized, and of indigenous.
From The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: indigenous, adj. 1.originating in and characterizing s particular region or country (my emphasis)
or, from Webster's New World Dictionary: 1. born, growing or produced naturally in a region or country

'Civilization' is a little harder to pin down, most definitions in my dictionarys follow the same lines: an advanced state of human society, etc. But that doesn't really help much. The root of the word however is civis, which, I believe is Latin for 'city state', so we can pretty much define civilization as being characterized by cities. Now, cities require food and other resourses to sustain themselves. Since they cannot produce these themselves, they must exploit the surrounding countryside. As cities grow, as cities must, so grows the countryside from which food and resourses must be imported. Eventually conquest and war become necessary, or fledgling civilizations die.
Hence Stanley Diamond's famous quote: "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home"

So, if the defining characteristic of indigenous people is a relationship with with a particular piece of land, and if cities require a for centralized, settled, and ever growing population to exploit an ever more land to sustain themselves, then cities, and by extension civilization are antithetical to the land and the indigenous.

It is true that many native groups on this continent were well on their way down this path when contact was made, but right now I'm talking mainly about hunter/gatherer peaples, such as the few remaining in the Amazon rain forest.

As to knowledge, thats harder to define precisely, but I think knowledge as we understand it is of a completely different nature than that of tribal or indigenous people. Another characteristic of civilization as I see it is ever increasing complexity, and specialization of knowledge. Technology for example is best understood not as a collection of gadgets, but as a comprehensive system. We all occupy our little specialized niches, and make up this extremely complex system upon which which we are all utterly dependent. Within this system, knowledge is power, because without the specialists who keep our machines running, the whole thing would collapse.

The other thing people don't understand about technology is that its driven forward not so much by human needs or desires, but by technical necessity: Technology naturally produces conditions that make more technology necessary, creates problems to which the only solution is more technology. This is what all of our knowledge is based on, and outside of the civilized context, in the hands of, say, the Piraha of the Amazon, it's nothing more than gibberish.

A New World Order, peaceful or otherwise, is the end result of the fulfilling of this technical necessity, the inner logic of civilization revealed.

This all stands in stark contrast with indigenous ways of knowledge, which comes from direct experience of the land, and so such knowledge cannot be used to hold power over anyone, because it's available to everyone. I'd even go as far as to say that it's just innate to us as human animals.

Sorry to run on like that, and I hope that all made sense.... I really tried to pack a lot of thinking into as few paragraphs as possible....

 

I think you've got the right idea.

 

Well, thats the plan, anyways.

 

It sure looks that way, doesn't it?

 

A positive New World Order could definately happen. For anything that can be used for malevolence (gps, guns, etc.) can be used for benevolent purposes. Globalization doesn't mean total domination of everything, it just means connectedness.

Free information for the world. Help Africa get on its feet.

Sustainability and renewable energy can definately happen. Plants use the sun to create other forms of energy. Who knows what future discovers will revolutionize the world. Wood -> Coal -> Gasoline -> ????

 

This implies that technology is neutral, and thus above any questioning or criticism. But this is not the truth. The fact is that technology embodies certain values, and defines the way in which we live. You cannot take certain desirable technologies and leave out others. All the little gadgets you mention are dependent upon the system at large, which enslaves us with disastrous consequences, as I summarized above, and elsewhere on these boards.

Civilization itself implies dominion over nature.

Again left unexamined is why this technology dependent global connectedness is even a good thing, or how it is any consolation to the face to face communities which have been in decline for generations, thanks to modernity.

Africa's troubles are all due to colonization. I don't see how more information will help them.

My thoughts exactly.

 

TEchnology IS neutral. It's absurd to say that any object has inherent value. As humans we have a problem, and work to create a solution. The technology that is created from this process is endowed a value by the PERSON.

A chair is only a chair until you use it as a ladder. A crossbow is only a hunting device until you use it for a grappling hook.

And yes, you can take out certain technologies and keep others. Why don't we have deep sea bombs that blow up the ocean floors and release tons of minerals to the surface? Simply because we have no need. How are we "enslaved with disastrous consequences"?

I agree, we do need to revive face-2-face communities. Even though that is lacking (bad) , it IS a good thing that if I want information (Google ^^) that I can retrieve it.

Civilization doesn't imply dominion over nature. Humans are part of nature, and require resources. IF you want to use an absurdly broad definition for "domination" then you might as well say that ants and bacteria dominate nature because they use up crazy amounts of resources. Instead of "dominion" most modern civilizations do severely upset the delicate balance of nature. It's the purpose of ALL life to have "dominion over nature". Because all life naturally reproduces, flourishes, and spreads to its greatest potential (but is limited by environmental factors).

Information is the key for life, because it helps us to evolve. Information would help Africa because benevolent spirits around the world could help them out. We could learn about their ecology, and we could help them become self-sufficient. If they wanted, they could become more modern and actually become a flourishing continent. Who knows what Africa could be if they had the means to become great? Maybe it'd be a hot location for solar energy since they have a lot of savannahs/desert.

Information is the key for creating anything in physical reality. If you knew you could become a billionaire by investing in some unforseen industry in Africa, would you? OF course. But you don't, because you lack information. Information = freedom. Restriction of information = corruption.

 

Technology of every sort embodies the values and lifestyles of those who use them. For the first several million years of our existence, we were able to life free of domination because the tools for our survival were all around us. These "primitive technologies" could be learned by anyone, and the means were available for free. This allowed our ancestors to live in a state of complete autonomy. In the case of modern technology, on the other hand, our survival is completely dependent on an extremely complex system of production and distribution. You cannot separate the crossbow from the production line from which it was produced, the factory from the river dam which powers it, the labor required for all those things, and the coercion necessary to obtain that labor. You can't separate the GPS systems you mentioned from the satellites, and from the engineers and other specialists required to build them and put them into space. It is all interdependent. To produce all these things, we must all coordinate our activity, binding us to a rigid work schedule, all this requiring strict social control. Governing bodies become necessary.
The very use of modern technology also reproduces conditions which require yet more technology. As our dependence grows and deepens, so grows the need to be more efficient. All things come to be perceived in terms of human utility- your use of the word 'resources' is revealing.

This is a ridiculous comparison, and hardly serves to justify the kind of rampant overconsumption going on today.

In discussing information, you seem to be referring to scientific knowledge. Science, once again is hardly neutral, for much the same reason as technology- it always perceives the world in terms of human utility. Also revealing is Bacons famous maxim- "knowledge is power". Also consider that of all our scientific knowledge, none of it has any validity outside the context of civilization. The Piraha have been living quite happily for many millions of years without any numbers beyond #2.

And for the record, I have NO interest at all in becoming a billionaire, or in filling up Africa's savannas with those ugly goddamn solar panels.

 

Ahhh I see what you meant before about the technology thing. I agree 1000%. I think to use most modern technology, we'd have to have a major shift in consciousness. The natural balance of earth would have to be taken into account for every new innovation made, and its sustainability.

About the bacteria thing. I'm in no way trying to justify overconsumption. Im actually quite against it. All I was saying is that when you say "dominion over nature" it really doesn't say anything about ecological balance. Weeds may hold dominion over an ecosystem, but may not be "bad". Am I sayin that right?

And knowledge is power goes for all life. That is what evolution is, because living things see problems and make solutions. Bacteria adapt to suit their purpose. When I say knowledge is power I don't mean to portray it in the humanistic sense. But that the ability to honestly/effectively observe, imagine, and create is what empowers anything. That's why we have language, writing, and math.

I think knowledge of all kinds is important, especially "spiritual". Our place on this earth, the earth as a living organism, how to find happiness and avoid stress, how to love.

We need to empower Africa. Not set up more colonies or suck away their resources. We need give them the tools to flourish in life. They (along with other peoples) are our sick brothers. And (IMO) we should help them out.

 

Good to know we share some common ground. And really- you must forgive me, I know I have a bit of an attitude problem. I've always thought it was part of my charm.

As to dominion...
The best entry I can find is in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (I have something of a dictionary fetish): dominion n. 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority. 2. rule; control; domination. 3. a territory, usually of considerable size, under a single rulership. 4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control. ...... 7. dominions, Theol. domination

I chose the word deliberately, to invoke the biblical notion of the Earth as handed down by god as the dominion of human beings in Genesis. It seems to summarize pretty well the logic of civilization from the very beginning.

I think I understand what your getting at, but I feel this is a concept unique to domestic, or civilized human beings, and that it precludes the notion of balance altogether. Wolves feed on deer, but as far as my understanding of the species goes, the wolf doesn't have the idea that he owns the deer, or that the deer exists solely to feed the wolf. In fact the relationship is much more dynamic than that. The wolves eat the deer, but only the sick or the week, thus improving the overall breeding stock of the deer. If you were to remove the wolf, or in fact any major predator from any ecosystem, the prey population would grow too large, overgrazing would ensure, the prey would become sick and suffer from parasites, and the whole region would fall out of balance.

The whole world once existed in such a balance, and us with it. Now we've converted entire ecosystems into monocultured cropland to feed a growing population.

I too am very sympathetic to the troubles in Africa. But it serves as a good example of the self-sustaining momentum that technological civilizations have. Faced with growing populations (populations inflated by technology, technologia, Latin for 'system') European nations were forced to expand. They colonized Africa, with disaterous consequences I'm sure we're both familiar with. They now face problems which appear can only be solved with the use of high technology. Yet if history is any indication, this will only raise yet more problems, which will demand yet more modernization. Traditional African culture will inevitably fade away, as machines replace simple, age old human ingenuity and Africans become more and more dependent upon this global system of production and distribution. Theoretically, there may come a day when we're advanced enough to make it all work (at least thats what those who have stock in these thing tell us) but by that time things will have become so advanced and complex that machines will have completely replaced us as administrators of human society, and we will have little choice but to go along in the direction that modern technology is taking us, for good or ill. I hope that makes sense, because I would hate to sound like I'm anthromorphising technology, which I'm not. It's not quite that technology has desires of it's own, I prefer to see it more like a self sustaining feedback loop, as technology continually recreates conditions that demand more technology.

This is why we need to take into account the context of our knowledge, because it's all encompassed within this system, mathematics, physics, agricultural knowledge, technical, whatever.

This can all be very difficult to explain.... We inevitably run into definitional problems. Even the dictionary can be of little help sometimes- it has it's own inherent biases. Take 'civilize' from Webster's New World Dictionary: "1. to bring out of a condition of savagery or barbarism; instruct in the ways of an advanced society." The English language itself is a very utilitarian one. Some anti-civilization philosophers have even gone as far as to question the merits of language itself, but thats purely speculative, and I'm undecided on that, and in any case, unprepared to open that can of worms.

 

I understand what you're saying. The day when we rely nearly entirely on fertilizer to buffer the ground, we become inseperately attached to the system. We have to continue the maddness or die.

I think it goes along with some thermodynamic law, basically saying that complex things want to reduce to a simple state. You have to put increasingly more amounts of input energy to get a wanted output.

I agree that we need to progress towards less technology. Back when the pioneers came to America there were flocks of migratory birds so long that it would take days to pass overhead. One shotgun shell into the sky and u could have food for months. Kudzu (a Japanese invasive species vine that grows rampid in the South) is a target of billions of dollars of removal programs, yet is useful for fodder, prevents erosion, and is food for most farm animals.

We just have to get rid of our ideas of what "works" and truly adapt towards nature. We give up true efficiency of nature for primitive ideas (Although often we never get up these primitives ideas cuz of societal monetary systems). We keep on pumping faith and our lives into these systems because that's all we know, and because they're rigid. Because of they're inefficient nature they're bound to collapse.